Regular bail granted where applicants had no antecedents, received no fraud proceeds, and trial would be prolonged.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 45/2025 registered at Police Station Bacheli, District South Bastar, Dantewada, for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant received calls from persons impersonating officials of the Telecom Department and Mumbai Crime Branch, who falsely claimed that his Aadhaar card had been misused in a money-laundering case connected with Naresh Goyal.

On the basis of these threats, the complainant transferred ₹19,50,000 to different bank accounts between 15 and 30 October 2025.

He lodged the complaint on 11 November 2025, following which the applicants and co-accused were arrested and the police filed a charge-sheet.

The applicants asserted that they were innocent, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 9 April 2026, and had not received any money in their bank accounts.

It was further submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial would take considerable time.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite allegations of cheating and cyber fraud involving ₹19,50,000?

Whether the applicants’ custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of any amount credited to their bank accounts justified the grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning cheating and dishonest inducement resulting in delivery of property, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning cheating by personation using a communication device or computer resource.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the materials collected during investigation, the applicants’ period of custody, criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of the trial, and the possibility of misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation that the complainant had been induced to transfer ₹19,50,000 through an impersonation-based cyber fraud.

However, it found that the affidavit filed by the SHO indicated that no amount had been received in the applicants’ bank accounts, which weakened the immediate basis for continued custody at the bail stage.

The applicants had been in custody since 9 April 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had already been filed; consequently, further custodial detention was not considered necessary, particularly as the trial was likely to take time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of bail and imposed conditions intended to secure the applicants’ attendance and prevent obstruction of the trial.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicants not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to a proclamation.